Herz

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 254–261

Medikamentenfreisetzende Stents der 2. Generation

Neu, aber auch kosteneffektiv?
  • F. Müller-Riemenschneider
  • T. Reinhold
  • S.N. Willich
Schwerpunkt/CME

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Arbeit hat zum Ziel, die bestehende Evidenz zur Kosteneffektivität von medikamentenfreisetzenden Stents (DES) der 2. Generation zusammenzufassen und im Vergleich mit „Bare-metal“-Stents (BMS) und DES der 1. Generation zu beurteilen. Hierzu wurden eine strukturierte Literaturrecherche in Medline durchgeführt und die Ergebnisse relevanter Publikationen anhand vorab definierter Selektionskriterien und standardisierter Extraktionsbögen zusammengefasst. Von den insgesamt 5 verfügbaren Kosteneffektivitätsanalysen aus den USA, aus Großbritannien und Spanien verglichen 3 Studien den Zotarolimus-beschichteten Endeavor-Stent (ZES) mit BMS und 2 Studien den ZES mit DES der 1. Generation. Zusammenfassend lässt sich feststellen, dass die Datenlage zur Beurteilung der Kosteneffektivität von DES der 2. Generation insbesondere in Deutschland gegenwärtig unzureichend ist. Die identifizierten Untersuchungen aus anderen Gesundheitssystemen geben jedoch gewisse Hinweise darauf, dass weder im Vergleich mit BMS noch mit DES eine überlegene Kosteneffektivität des ZES besteht. Darüber hinaus ist festzustellen, dass Kosteneffektivitätsanalysen des Everolimus-beschichteten Xience-V-Stent aktuell fehlen. Methodisch verlässliche Studien, die die Kosteneffektivität von DES der 2. Generation im deutschen Gesundheitssystem auch innerhalb wichtiger Subgruppen untersuchen, sind somit dringend indiziert.

Schlüsselwörter

Übersichtsarbeit Kosteneffektivität Drug-eluting Stent Zotarolimus Everolimus 

Second-generation DES

New, but also cost-effective?

Abstract

Background

The objective of the present review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) as well as to first-generation DES.

Methods

A structured literature review in MEDLINE was conducted to identify all studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of second-generation DES published up to December 2010. Pre-specified selection criteria were applied to identify relevant studies. Standardized data extraction was performed to summarize clinical, economic, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of these studies.

Results

Of only five studies which met all selection criteria from the US, UK, and Spain, three investigated the cost-effectiveness of the zotarolimus-coated Endeavor stent (ZES) compared to BMS, and two studies the ZES with first-generation DES.

Conclusion

In summary, there is currently a lack of evidence with regard to the cost-effectiveness of second-generation DES, especially in Germany. However, studies from other countries provide some evidence that second-generation DES appear to generally not be cost-effective compared to BMS. Also, there is no conclusive evidence of cost-effectiveness compared to first-generation DES. Moreover, there are currently no studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of the Everolimus-coated Xience V stent. Methodologically rigorous economic evaluations addressing these issues within the context of the German health care system are therefore urgently required.

Keywords

Review Cost-effectiveness Drug-eluting stent Zotarolimus Everolimus 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M et al (2006) Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 367:1747–1757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N et al (2010) Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 31:2501–2555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buuren F van (2010) 25. Bericht über die Leistungszahlen der Herzkatheterlabore in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kardiologe 4:502–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buuren F van, Horstkotte D (2009) 24. Bericht über die Leistungszahlen der Herzkatheterlabore in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kardiologe 3:512–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trikalinos TA, Alsheikh-Ali AA, Tatsioni A et al (2009) Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet 373:911–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG et al (2007) Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 356:998–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garg S, Serruys PW (2010) Coronary stents: current status. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:S1–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lange RA, Hillis LD (2010) Second-generation drug-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 362:1728–1730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    InEK – Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System. http://www.g-drg.de/cms/index.php/inek_site_deGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Willich S, Brüggenjürgen B, McBride D et al (2006) Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents for the reduction of coronary restenosis: outcome and economic analysis of the GERSHWIN study. Circulation 114:II_689, Abstract 3250Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Willich S, Brüggenjürgen B, McBride D et al (2005) Medikament-freisetzende versus konventionelle Stents. Dtsch Arztebl 102:A3180Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neyt M, Van Brabandt H, Devriese S, De Laet C (2009) Cost-effectiveness analyses of drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents: a systematic review of the literature. Health Policy 91:107–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill RA, Boland A, Dickson R et al (2007) Drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 11:iii, xi-iii,221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mukherjee D, Moliterno DJ (2009) Second-generation drug-eluting stents and the continuous need for rapidly available real-world data. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:1236–1239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaiser C, Galatius S, Erne P et al (2010) Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries. N Engl J Med 363:2310–2319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W et al (2010) Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 362:1663–1674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leon MB, Kandzari DE, Eisenstein EL et al (2009) Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:1208–1218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisenstein EL, Leon MB, Kandzari DE et al (2009) Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the cypher sirolimus-eluting stent: 3-year results from the ENDEAVOR III trial (Randomized Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:1199–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eisenstein EL, Wijns W, Fajadet J et al (2009) Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor drug-eluting stent versus the Driver bare-metal stent: 4-year results from the ENDEAVOR II trial (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:1178–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Remak E, Manson S, Hutton J et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness of the Endeavor stent in de novo native coronary artery lesions updated with contemporary data. EuroIntervention 5:826–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreu J, Cequier A, Brosa M et al (2009) Economic evaluation and budget impact analysis of the Endeavor drug-eluting stent in Spain. Gac Sanit 23:540–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park DW, Kim YH, Yun SC et al (2010) Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization: the ZEST (comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stent with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary lesions) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1187–1195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rasmussen K, Maeng M, Kaltoft A et al (2010) Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet 375:1090–1099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaiser C, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Buser PT et al (2005) Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real-world setting: randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET). Lancet 366:921–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E et al (2010) Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial. Lancet 375:201–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Serruys PW, Ong AT, Piek JJ et al (2005) A randomized comparison of a durable polymer Everolimus-eluting stent with a bare metal coronary stent: The SPIRIT first trial. EuroIntervention 1:58–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reinhold T, Brüggenjürgen B, Schlander M et al (2010) Economic analysis based on multinational studies – methods for adapting findings to national contexts. J Public Health 18:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Urban & Vogel, Muenchen 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Müller-Riemenschneider
    • 1
  • T. Reinhold
    • 1
  • S.N. Willich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und GesundheitsökonomieCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations